13 ms·
Zero Hedge Says Facebook Banned Users from Sharing Its Posts
- tptacek 8y agoI wonder what took them so long. Zero Hedge is more insidious than Infowars, where they are at least up front about the lizard people conspiracy.
- iooi 8y agoWhat's really insidious is that they mix well-sourced, real news with absolute trash, so if you're just looking at the headlines it's not unreasonable to think that they're all real. That is, until you click on one of the trash articles and find that the "source" is a blog that sources another blog, which sources yet another blog and so on.
- arcseco 8y agoKind of like what news papers do in their OP-Ed sections. Worth noting, it took the NYT until March 10th [1] to finally come to the conclusion that ZH had come to on Feb 24th [2], regarding the burning of AID trucks being sent to Venezuela. ZH has an anti-establishment bend, and will take a critically hostile point of view against the main stream, it's interesting to read that perspective when most established news organization are aligned one way in their reporting. Glenn Greenwald had a great piece on the spread of fake news surrounding the AID truck event, worth reading for anyone who is somewhat skeptical of establishment narratives. [3] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-aid-fire-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-... [2] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-23/venezuela-border-tensions-soar-guaido-mounts-aid-convoy-attempt-cross-blocked https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-23/venezuela-border-t... [3] https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about-burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread-fake-news/ https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-...
- mises 8y agoAnother excellent example is buzzfeed, though they've recently separated out their "news" section, supposedly.
- darkpuma 8y agoFunny you cite that (excellent) Intercept article. It's author, Glenn Greenwald, is another one constantly being accused of shilling for Russia. You can find a few examples on algolia if you poke around: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=glenn%20greenwald%20russia&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=custom&type=comment&dateStart=1483228800&dateEnd=1552435200 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=glenn%20greenwald%20russia&sor...
- tzs 8y ago> Worth noting, it took the NYT until March 10th [1] to finally come to the conclusion that ZH had come to on Feb 24th [2], regarding the burning of AID trucks being sent to Venezuela. The latest update to the ZH article says: ZH> True to his word, it appears the humanitarian aid trucks being sent from the west into Venezuela have been repelled by Maduro's guards as reports come in from social media that they are all now on fire. I don't see anything that says that the protestors set them on fire, but might have missed it. The way that is written makes it sound like Maduro's guards did it. The only mention I see of protestors setting anything on fire is the burning of a bus covered earlier on the page.
- arcseco 8y agoYou're correct, I cited the wrong article. It was rather on Feb 28th [1] that they published an article which posited that the opposition to Maduro's government may have been responsible. [1] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-28/burning-aid-interventionist-deception-colombia-venezuela-bridge https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-28/burning-aid-interv... To also clarify my position, ZH is not very reputable, but they provide interesting insight into current events and will sometimes post contradictory views from different blogs/news sites. It's up to the reader to determine if the "news" they produce is verifiable or merely conjecture. It should not be up to facebook to make the decision for the reader. Also it is worrying that a company with the reach of NYT doesn't produce this information till weeks after the event. It allowed for the false version of the incident to complete its cycle in the news without interrupting the narrative being formed, and thus creates and incentive for people to seek-out ZH as a source of info. ZH isn't reputable, but their reputation is improved when they are stacked up against poor reporting from other agencies, which is unfortunate.
- s9w 8y agoSo exactly like almost every newspaper or tv news
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago>What's really insidious is that they mix well-sourced, real news with absolute trash, so if you're just looking at the headlines it's not unreasonable to think that they're all real. That is, until you click on one of the trash articles and find that the "source" is a blog that sources another blog, which sources yet another blog and so on. So like the rest of the news? The point of news is to have a spectrum and you read them and determine the truth for yourself. None of the points you make validate a ban.
- dev_dull 8y agoI wonder is the GP has been paying attention in MSM these days. I’ve read “bombshell” after “bombshell” of breaking news regarding the current administration, with nearly everything turning out to be a dud. No apologies and no retractions.
- jamespo 8y ago> So like the rest of the news? mmm... fake equivalence
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago>mmm... fake equivalence Could you provide me some links showing Zero hedge is different? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
- jamespo 8y agoYou're the one that claims the rest of "the news" has articles with sources solely from random blogs... come up with some examples yourself.
- raverbashing 8y agoSame as RT/Sputniknews
- spaginal 8y agoDo your own thinking then and exercise criticism towards all sources of information, mainstream or not. Free speech isn’t about holding your hand and establishing a standard, it’s about laying out all the information, real or not, and letting you decide for yourself. If you posit that censorship is an acceptable form of filtering where someone else with their own version of facts and biases does your thinking, then you are entering a very dangerous mindset.
- keepitsalty 8y agoInfowars doesn't believe in a lizard people conspiracy...
- JKCalhoun 8y agoAlex Jones does apparently push the idea that a "gay bomb" has made frogs turn gay. So there's that....
- keepitsalty 8y agoThat's a naive half truth. You've taken two different ideas, smashed them together to make it sound silly. I'm not here to be a spokesperson for IW but it is kind of funny how many people just spew information they picked up from reading headlines, similar to the clickbait ZH posts daily.
- duxup 8y agoI think the other user is commenting on the scale of absurdity. Perhaps one site isn't into a lizard conspiracy, but they push a "gay bomb" theory. Nobody is debating either topic, just noting how absurd the information they push is.
- ceejayoz 8y agohttps://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing-ridiculous-conspiracy-theories.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing... > "The reason there's so many gay people now is because it's a chemical warfare operation, and I have the government documents where they said they're going to encourage homosexuality with chemicals so that people don't have children," he said on his broadcast in 2010, according to NBC News. > "The majority of frogs in most areas of the United States are now gay," Jones said in 2017. The claim was without evidence.
- keepitsalty 8y agoMy point made exactly. Two separate ideas from completely different contexts smashed together to create a new, even more ridiculous statement.
- JackPoach 8y agoI disagree. While ZH does have a fair share of this type of news, most of it just contrarian point of view (Tesla bashing, for instance). I read ZH pretty much daily and I personally have no issues understanding which article is which.
- bhangi 8y agoI agree. While there are many articles that are questionably sourced and there are many articles with which I profoundly disagree (mostly advocating Austrian style economics and unfettered capitalism), it also provides a forum for viewpoints that are actually quite progressive and liberal (particularly when it comes to civil liberties). I'd rather be the one separating the wheat from the chaff for myself than Facebook or its ilk filtering it for me. Note that the ZH comments section, however, is a cesspit filled with all sort of -ists.
- nilskidoo 8y agoBlocking content like zh on the socials is really the same as Tim Allen/Roseanne/James Gunn being fired for things they've said. The company cares sooo much about what their audiences think that they won't let said audiences decide for themselves what to think. It's not supply produced to meet an existing demand but versa vice. Legally these companies may have the right to censor like so, but ethically they do not, and they belittle their customers in the doing.
- tenpies 8y agoCould you flesh your comment out a bit more? How are they more insidious than Infowars? I am assuming the worst thing Infowars has done was claim that that one school shooting was a fake shooting and the survivors crisis actors. By contrast my impression of Zero Hedge has been that they are constant economic contrarians. If mainstream media is touting the strong economy, Zero Hedge posters are writing about how fiat currency is unsustainable and how the long-term trend low interest rates is creating a bubble. I do agree the sources of their article range from "I think I heard somewhere" to "based on this Bloomberg data", it's all over the place. But I don't think I've ever seen anything that I would call insidious. Fair disclaimer that I follow Zero Hedge on Twitter, for much the same reason I follow CNBC: I need a perma-bear to balance out the perma-bull.
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago>Could you flesh your comment out a bit more? How are they more insidious than Infowars? I am assuming the worst thing Infowars has done was claim that that one school shooting was a fake shooting and the survivors crisis actors. Infowars is tabloid material at best; but even they say that this is a lie. They never asserted this. >But I don't think I've ever seen anything that I would call insidious. I've found myself on zerohedge a few times through investing reasons. I've looked through their content and I'm not really seeing anything offensive really. >Fair disclaimer that I follow Zero Hedge on Twitter, for much the same reason I follow CNBC: I need a perma-bear to balance out the perma-bull. Very wise move.
- joshuamorton 8y ago>Infowars is tabloid material at best; but even they say that this is a lie. They never asserted this. Yes they did. Alex Jones initially called Sandy Hook a hoax and the families crisis actors. He is being (so far successfully) sued for such acts[0]. He did walk back some of those claims, but here's his words: >"Yeah, so, Sandy Hook is a synthetic completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn’t believe it at first. I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids. And it just shows how bold they are, that they clearly used actors. I mean they even ended up using photos of kids killed in mass shootings here in a fake mass shooting in Turkey -- so yeah, or Pakistan. The sky is now the limit. I appreciate your call."[1] They're tricky to find because they are not written but made live on a radio show, but yeah Infowars absolutely claimed that sandy hook parents and children were actors. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/us/politics/alex-jones-defamation-suit-sandy-hook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/us/politics/alex-jones-de... [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20170303201414/http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-correct-austins-alex-jones-said-no/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170303201414/http://www.politi...
- ratling 8y agoAll I had to hear was 'libertarian' to put them in the 'wee woo magical market fix' camp.
- NavyNuke 8y agoDo you ever look at ZH? Seriously, I just looked at the stories on the front page and most are economic related. Can you share the ones that are conspiracy related or are what you consider "insidious"? Thanks
- tptacek 8y agoDon't take my word for it. Here's one of the Durdens: https://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/is-the-alt-right-for-real https://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/is-the...
- detcader 8y agoZaid Jilani made a point this week about how AIPAC isn't actually that powerful, rather BDS just doesn't try that hard to lobby and get the right people elected. I guess the BDS movement is going to have to get itself hired Facebook as well now to not get its websites banned? If that's how we think things should be--that what we think is and isn't "insidious" as a society should be steered by Facebook's hiring whims--I think we should be pretty upfront about that! At least all this is happening above board. It's not like Facebook has employees running tutorials on private Slack servers teaching people how to game the harassment reporting system to spike down content involving opinions they don't like.
- jpovenden 8y agoZH, circa 8 years ago was half decent, lots of conspiracy nonsense but also lots of market rumours, since then it has become a Russian propaganda page full of nonsense.
- tomp 8y agoAh come on. ZH is a primarily contrarian financial news site. They often break important market-moving news faster than other mainstream media, aggregate better by considering all sources (including Twitter), and criticise just about everyone. Sure, they are often bearish (predicting crashes that then don’t happen), but that’s an easy bias to filter for, and not really that different from the general negative-news bias of most media (i.e. clickbait). Simply because they also criticise the West (politicians, governments, media, policies) (because the West is included in everyone) doesn’t immediately make them Russian trolls. I can’t believe this is even still a serious accusation, for me it’s in the realm of conspiracy theories.
- ceejayoz 8y agohttps://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/is-the-alt-right-for-real https://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/is-the... > By his own account, Lokey was writing as many as fifteen posts a day, among them most of the political pieces. The gig had a certain formula, he told Bloomberg: “Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry= dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft.” For Zero Hedge, Syria was a special obsession, a sign of the essential strength of authoritarian regimes and the weakness of democracies. ZH says he's a disgruntled employee, but there's at least some evidence it's more than "they hate everyone". I mean, honestly: "The Sinister Choreography Of The MH17 Probe To Smear Russia" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-31/sinister-choreography-mh17-probe-smear-russia https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-31/sinister-choreogra...
- cloakandswagger 8y agoYou highlighted a perfect example of why ZeroHedge and other contrarian news sources are so necessary: When the war drums were in full swing against Syria and every major western news outlet was breathlessly promoting intervention with propaganda of their own (pictures of shell-shocked kids, championing of the brave "freedom fighters" and white helmets, spurious claims of "chemical attacks"), ZH provided a counterpoint that challenged those perceptions. In that particular situation, both sides were total propaganda and Syria was the grayest of gray areas. I like to think I'm not the only one who read both extremes of the reporting with a filter and arrived at my own conclusion.
- sleepysysadmin 8y agoFacebook, Twitter, Patreon have all been censoring right-wing lately. This is just another example. From my point of view, the left wing is calling the right wing nazis and trying to get them banned.
- dymk 8y agoIf the right wing associates themselves with ZH and Infowars, maybe they should reevaluate who they keep close company with
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago>If the right wing associates themselves with ZH and Infowars, maybe they should reevaluate who they keep close company with I cant say I've ever been on Zero Hedge that many times; just looking through their site now I'm not really seeing anything objectionable. They do have a ton of content so perhaps I'm not seeing what you see as bad. Could you provide examples?
- vajrabum 8y agoWhich right wing? I don't think that Mitch McConnell is a Nazi. I've not heard anyone call him one. Lots of other right wing politicians, activists, journalists and even right wing shock jocks you can say that about. Most are not. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are not Nazis even though I entirely despise them. But if by right wing do you mean Richard Spencer, Milos Yiannopoulis, the Portland Proud Boy crowd or the people doing the torchlit march in Charlottesville who were chanting "blood and soil." If so, then yes, the right wing is a bunch of Nazis.
- HeWhoLurksLate 8y agoIn line with this: [1] Senator Warren gets her anti-Facebook ads blocked, too. It seems like Facebook just feels threatened by everything right now, and that they recognize that they're dependent on people being on their platform to stay alive. I would like your thoughts on this: What has to happen to get everyone to migrate to a new platform, or is that even possible? https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/03/12/blocked-ads-proving-her-point-warren-says-facebook-shouldnt-have-power-decide-what https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/03/12/blocked-ads-pro...
- sleepysysadmin 8y agoThe thing is, Warren's antifacebook ads are now back to being played. The right-wing folks on the otherhand stay banned.
- Legogris 8y agoIf by "right-wing" you mean xenophobic/fear-inducing wrt nationality/ethnicity/culture then yeah. Or do you have examples of actual right-wing folks being banned?
- NavyNuke 8y agoPeople who want their country to stay their country (in terms of ethnicity and culture) are still worthy of discussion...it is a valid political position...you can't just say "they don't count, please provide somebody else we can discuss that fit my narrow definition of right-wing"
- Legogris 8y agoWhat you are talking about is tangential to do with the left- right spectrum, though (unless I am misinformed of course, who are you talking about got banned for what? I meant it as an honest question, not a rhetoric one) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%8%93right_political_spectrum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%8%93right_political_...
- 8y ago
- hugh4life 8y agoDo what you want, but all this censorship is just making me shake my head when censorship is brought up in other countries.
- lawlessone 8y agoJust checked, Zerohedge website still works.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- beager 8y agoFor the ten-thousandth time: getting banned on Facebook is not censorship. When it gets brought up in other countries, it is the governments of those countries doing it. Facebook can do what it wants here. If you don't like it, divest.
- s9w 8y agoAnd there it is. The ubiquitous defense, that as long as it's done by the left, it's not censorship because it's not done by a country. That never made any sense
- TheLuddite 8y agoI wonder how many of the ZeroHedge fans missed the greatest stock rally of all time and are stuck with gold bars under their floor...bought at 2500USD an ounce from a website peddled by Glenn Beck. Just thinking about this I'm getting a smile on my face.
- pnw_hazor 8y agoWell, when you put it like that, ZH is pretty mainstream. "Donald Trump's first gift to the world will be another financial crisis." Headline in the U.K. Independent. "(He) gives every impression that he will soon be hustling America — and possibly the entire world — in the direction of another catastrophic financial crisis." Same article. "I have no stocks. I advise people not to invest in the stock market, not now. Way too dangerous." Film maker Michael Moore, August, 2017. "It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? A first-pass answer is never… So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." Paul Krugman of the New York Times the day after the election.
- dionian 8y agoNot a good reason for willingly and smilingly accepting censorship of any kind
- glangdale 8y agoYes, they've predicted 30 of the past 3 major crises, haven't they?
- lawlessone 8y agoit's a scam of website, i'm ok with this.
- raverbashing 8y agoAnd nothing of value was lost. ZH went into propaganda and fake news mode a long time ago.
- pnw_hazor 8y agoBetter or worse than Paul Krugman?
- charlesism 8y agoI'm not a huge Paul Krugman fan. That said, Paul Krugman is a Nobel-prize winning economist, whereas Daniel Ivandjiiski is a convicted financial criminal.
- pnw_hazor 8y agoMore proof that the Nobel-prize can be a meaningless metric.
- mises 8y agoI read their stuff, though most of what I read comes out of the weekly emails. There is some actual good content, though like all other outlets, I'm sure there's some bad. Here's some of the stuff I see on their front page right now: * China's belt-and-road * Venezuela (worth noting they were an early reporter on the aid-burning) * Anti-Tesla stuff * Anti-SEC, pro-Elon Musk stuff * Stop Brexit * Boeing * China's massive debt load * They still like gold Yes, it's clear they have their own set of biases, again like every other outlet. But they don't seem to be super far left or right, and certainly don't seem to be "russian propaganda".
- cloakandswagger 8y agoThey definitely pick up a lot of Russian talking points (see their virulent skepticism over the Skripal attack), but they serve as a very useful counterbalance to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, et al. I shudder at whatever Orwellian hellscape we've landed in when people celebrate the censorship of a differently minded news source instead of utilizing it: read both it and your mainstream sources with a filter, apply your own independent thought and judgment and arrive at your own conclusion.
- darkpuma 8y ago> "Russian talking points" Anti-Maduro rioters being responsible for the aid-truck fire was a "Russian talking point" until a few days ago when the New York Times, America's most venerable newspaper of record, finally admitted it was true. Credit to arcseco for drawing my attention to this: https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about-burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread-fake-news/ https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-... At least this time it didn't take the New York Times the better part of 60 years to admit they were wrong, as it did when they were publishing Russian talking points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
- cloakandswagger 8y agoI totally agree, and just because something is promoted strongly by Russia doesn't mean it's false, it just highlights the importance of reading a variety of different sources and applying your own critical thinking to find the truth. Two examples: The Venezuelan aid-truck stunt. Clearly orchestrated by the US to help nudge regime change. On the other hand, the MH17 crash: clearly a case of Russian forces mistakenly shooting down a passenger jet and coming up with some outlandish claims against the evidence (ie that it was faked with CGI). Both are instances where the truth would've been lost on someone who exclusively reads and believes only one source of news.
- tzs 8y agoZero Hedge is the only site I've ever run into that gets zero checks on NewsGuard [1]. For comparison, InfoWars gets 4 out of 9 [2], and Breitbart gets 5 of 9 [3]. National Review, Wall Street Journal, and The Daily Signal all get full check marks [4][5][6], for examples of conservative sites with top ratings. [1] https://api.newsguardtech.com/1B10A8FE3FE38166041EF99B6BDE6C3DBB841FCEEEDFD4175C9CAF9BCEAB07ABCF99012502C3C4DC775C724D81F8BD39F653709C2AAD5B56?cid=44cf118c-b843-457c-9ee3-c373012ce0ab https://api.newsguardtech.com/1B10A8FE3FE38166041EF99B6BDE6C... [2] https://api.newsguardtech.com/86BCB950AC90212617C8328B3BDC7B68B20BDD33FCD248691B93109E197C9F9E44BB50D873BA900AB8C95E905C656BA7E5440692C50C963E?cid=44cf118c-b843-457c-9ee3-c373012ce0ab https://api.newsguardtech.com/86BCB950AC90212617C8328B3BDC7B... [3] https://api.newsguardtech.com/A7F7BCBA597324801963CA38B46F4E412279EF2B902F6DC69519BDCAAD2B71BAF9F8D5C50F7BB8F76C53E4F28607DA131F85A3448CB7BA9D?cid=44cf118c-b843-457c-9ee3-c373012ce0ab https://api.newsguardtech.com/A7F7BCBA597324801963CA38B46F4E... [4] https://api.newsguardtech.com/5D044567246813D305EF4CFAC2D797885F0AD82B58B017BEAC4882842FEF7AF951596F1DE857E4E8478486785BD6092F5E928D82048DE090?cid=44cf118c-b843-457c-9ee3-c373012ce0ab https://api.newsguardtech.com/5D044567246813D305EF4CFAC2D797... [5] https://api.newsguardtech.com/BBB6E27D9A686CF806D035DCEC50B4E8B75DA217FFC99423D0825D54D859A811DE4BB78A2523A95B1C3CD32E927C399CD597E709A757BD15?cid=44cf118c-b843-457c-9ee3-c373012ce0ab https://api.newsguardtech.com/BBB6E27D9A686CF806D035DCEC50B4... [6] https://api.newsguardtech.com/DCFD64CB17AE2BBCC342F9FFD70DB8938BAEE877072465D534DD5A9F1987AEDDE283C08E9B627EDC73D5AE161851EDFC7563BE2C45FA04C4?cid=44cf118c-b843-457c-9ee3-c373012ce0ab https://api.newsguardtech.com/DCFD64CB17AE2BBCC342F9FFD70DB8...
- dev_dull 8y agoHave we as a community decided that newsguard is anything but trash? Why would any of us be willing to submit ourselves to “censorship as a service”? If anything, we need to be breaking apart these types of technological control software. I don’t want anything to do with “newsguard” and I urge others to take a critical eye on that idea as well.
- tptacek 8y agoIndeed, why trust any experts on anything? We should do the legwork, all of it, for every decision we make. Vaccines? I want to see it kill a polio and then not make an autism. The earth? Sure looks flat to me. Can you prove it's round? Then show me how to do it, so I can prove it to myself? Taking other people's word for it is just censoring alternative points of view. This is America. I don't want anything to do with censorship.
- dev_dull 8y agoWe need gadfly news sources like ZH. We need people who take a contrarian view. The only people who shouldn’t be reading ZH are people who believe everything they read. Those people also shouldn’t be reading MSM.
- stusmall 8y agoJust because something has a contrarian view doesn't make its good. What use is a contrarian view if their bar for quality is that low? Something like WSJ makes sense as a counter balance to NYT, not some 3rd tier blog. The desire to see "both sides" causes people to lift up sources that are otherwise ignored for a reason. This isn't a justification for Facebook blocking them, but we sure don't need them either.
- electriclove 8y agoThere is a ton of 'news' on Zero Hedge and many times I hear about things there first before the mainstream news sites which sometimes never cover the story (Yellow Vest protests in Europe, US taking gold from ISIS in Syria, reasons for what is going on in Venezuela, etc). You need to critically think about what you are reading and understand what biases the writer might have. I'll read 1 out of 20-30 headings and there is some absolutely solid content there.
- leereeves 8y agoWhether Zero Hedge is trustworthy or not is a far less important question than whether Facebook is trustworthy. Even people who want someone to censor social media should be concerned about who the censor is.
- duxup 8y agoI agree, and disagree. How trustworthy Facebook is as far as their choices on what to filter is somewhat related to if ZH is in fact trustworthy too... same goes for other sites.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- standerman 8y agoI was a regular reader of ZH for a long stretch leading up to the 2012 election and in my opinion their content is toxic and fuels paranoia. Lots of "end stage capitalism" and "prepper" type content. From my perspective now it definitely seems like the type of content that could be considered intentionally manipulative in a very negative way. It was very fear driven and I don't think that is healthy.
- rrmm 8y agoYeah, I had seen links to ZH from top-notch economic blogs I followed during the recession, so I was surprised when they started popping up as sources for all my favorite crazy conspiracy Youtubers. Their content at this point spans the gamut from needlessly contrarian to peddling propaganda. I gather ZH is doing it for the page views, because stories like that get plenty of traffic.
- heisenbit 8y agoIt is not a news site but a fight club (their positioning). And over the years more and more people not worth fighting have aggregated there. It is in some way an anarchistic experiment and the longer it runs the sadder it looks. I learned a lot during the early years and I learned a lot by observing how they developed.
- gabbygab 8y agoWhat news content isn't toxic and doesn't fuel paranoia? Which content isn't manipulative? Everything I read from every side has me believing the world is going to end, collapse is right around the corner, opium epidemics everywhere, plague imminent, etc. No need to single out ZH only.
- vernie 8y agoBanned for using "Tyler Durden" as a pen name.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tomlock 8y agoI made it to page two, and after reading about how apparently democrats hate Jews, and entitled millenials "the helpless generation" want the impossible dream of universal healthcare, I'm not entirely sure why anyone would die on a hill for this publication.
- virtuexru 8y agoA lot of the comments here are missing the real issue here which is that while you may not agree with the content of ZeroHedge this sets an eery precedent for future Facebook policing of what is & isn't allowed on its network.
- buttslasher69 8y agoWhy does facebook think it is appropriate to stop me from sharing an article I like with friends and family? Aren't they a platform?
- sleepysysadmin 8y agoZerohedge is unbanned from facebook now. Trump Jr and other high profile folks commented on it. They had to turn that around.